Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] CMDQ: Mediatek CMDQ driver

[Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2906 bytes --]

On 6 June 2016 at 15:03, Horng-Shyang Liao <hs.liao@mediatek.com> wrote:

> Hi Matthias, Jassi,
>
> On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 18:41 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On 03/06/16 08:12, Horng-Shyang Liao wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 10:46 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> >
> > >>> I keep thinking about how to get rid of the two data structures,
> > >>> task_busy_list and the task_release_wq. We need the latter for the
> only
> > >>> sake of getting a timeout.
> > >>>
> > >>> Did you have a look on how the mailbox framework handles this?
> > >>> By the way, what is the reason to not implement the whole driver as a
> > >>> mailbox controller? For me, this driver looks like a good fit.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> CMDQ needs to encode commands for GCE hardware. We think this behavior
> > >> should be put in CMDQ driver, and client just call CMDQ functions.
> > >> Therefore, if we want to use mailbox framework, cmdq_rec must be
> > >> mailbox client, and the others must be mailbox controller.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You mean the functions to fill the cmdq_rec and execute it?
> > > I think this should be part of the driver.
> > >
> > > Jassi, can you have a look on the interface this driver exports [0].
> > > They are needed to actually create the message which will be send.
> > > Could something like this be part of a mailbox driver?
> > >
> > > [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9140221/
> > >
> > Packet creating/parsing should not be a part of controller driver. As
> > the log of this patch says, today it is used for only display but in
> > future it could work with other h/w as well, so it makes sense to have
> > mailbox api do the message queuing, the controller driver do the
> > send/receive and client drivers implement display and other h/w
> > specific packaging of data (protocol handling).
> >
> > So yes, I think this could use mailbox api.
> >
> > Cheers.
>
>
> Let me use display as an example to do some further explanation
> about CMDQ in advance. You can think CMDQ is a shadow register
> replacement. Therefore, we use cmdq_rec_write(_mask), cmdq_rec_wfe, and
> cmdq_rec_clear_event instead of accessing registers, and use
> cmdq_rec_flush(_async) instead of atomic swap.
>
> If we use mailbox to do the message queue, we can use mailbox framework
> to implement flush and callback. However, I don't think mailbox is
> suitable for cmdq_rec_write(_mask), cmdq_rec_wfe, and
> cmdq_rec_clear_event since they are just record some commands. Is this
> the same as your comment "Packet creating/parsing should not be a part
> of controller driver."?
>
> Therefore, do you mean we use mailbox framework to implement flush and
> callback and keep other interfaces?


Yes, implement flush and callback in mailbox controller driver and keep
other interfaces in mailbox client driver(s).

Cheers.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3834 bytes --]